US Treasury Looted 27
Trillion Obama Bush Clinton Guilty
Breaking News June 6, 2010
http://blogs.myspace.com/tom_heneghan_intel
Questions That Need To
Be Answered
Ambassador Leo Wanta
Update
Awaking Americans:
Behind the scenes intelligence briefings ALL Patriot Americans MUST know...the
REAL facts and truth the corporate-controlled mainstream media covers up
by Tom Heneghan
International Intelligence Expert
Friday March 19, 2010 reposted Sunday June 6, 2010
UNITED STATES of America - Further update from
Ambassador Leo Wanta:
From:
Ambassador Lee Emil Wanta ..
Subject: Some Questions, Some Answers
To: "The Honorable Barack H Obama" <president@whitehouse.gov>, "The Honorable Barack H. Obama" <president@messages.whitehouse.gov>, "President Barack Obama" <info@messages.whitehouse.gov>,
"President Barack Obama" <comments@whitehouse.gov>
Cc: "Mr David Axelrod" .., "The White House_David Axelrod"
.., "FDIC_Chair Sheila Bair" <sbair@fdic.gov>, "David Barr" <dbarr@fdic.gov>,
"The Honorable Joseph Biden" <vice.president@whitehouse.gov>, "Vice President Joe Biden" <vicepresident@whitehouse.gov>,
"DNI_Admiral Dennis Blair" <devoux.jeremy@gmail.com>, "Deputy Director_Jeremy Bird" <info@barackobama.com>,
"Deputy Director_Joe Weisenthal" <jweisenthal@alleyinsider.com>, "FedResSystem Inspector General" <oighotline@frb.gov>,
"US Special Counsel Patrick J. USAILN Fitzgerald [USAILN]" <patrick.j.fitzgerald@usdoj.gov>,
"GAO_FRAUDNET" <fraudnet@gao.gov>, "The Honorable Timothy Geithner" <treasurer@do.treas.gov>,
"Attorney General Eric Holder" <askdoj@usdoj.gov>, "SEC_Inspector General H David Kotz" <enforcement@sec.gov>,
"Secretary Ray LaHood" <dot.comments@dot.gov>, "Office of the Inspector General" <oig@dc.gov>,
"OSC_Audre Fields-Williams" <awilliams@osc.gov>, "SEC_Chair Mary Schapiro" <chairmanoffice@sec.gov>,
"US Department of Transportation Reference Service" <ntl1@mailwc.custhelp.com>,
"US Repr Bart Gordon" <donna.pignatelli@mail.house.gov>, "US Repr Steve King" <imaia05h@mail.house.gov>,
"US Senator Jim Webb" <senator_jim_webb@webb.enews.senate.gov>, "US Senator Patty Murray" <webmaster@murray.senate.gov>,
"Chairman Paul A. Volcker" <pavtemp@aol.com>, "Harvard_Professor Elizabeth Warren" <ewarren@law.harvard.edu>
Date: Thursday, March 18, 2010, 12:51 PM
I ask the
following questions as an interested observer and a journalist of many
years. During my 25 years as a banker, my writing career continued with
reputable publications like The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust
Marketing Magazine, the American Bankers Association, Private Banker
International. As an aside, the term “private bank” is not synonymous
with “central bank” -- except to journalists who want them to sound the same –
but that’s a different issue for a different day.
Here is a statement (to which Christopher Story, International Currency Review,
refers in his 15 March 2010 article) of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
regarding the Writ of Mandamus filed by Ambassador Wanta against Henry M.
Paulson, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury and his Deputy Secretary Robert M.
Kimmitt, James R. Wilkinson, Chief of Staff at Treasury, Michael Chertoff,
Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney
General of the United States, and the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond:
"FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND
"Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P., Respondent Federal Reserve Bank
of Richmond (“FRB Richmond”) moves to dismiss the Petition for Writ of Mandamus
and Other Extraordinary Relief (the “Petition”). The grounds of this Motion, as
amplified in the attached Brief, are as follow.
"For the purposes of this Motion only, all well pleaded facts will be
taken as true."
(END OF QUOTE)
If the Federal Reserve accepts the statements made by "Ambassador Leo E.
Wanta" in the Writ of Mandamus "as true," on what grounds does
Christopher Story suggest the Richmond Fed is lying?
To know what the Fed means when it says “all well pleaded facts will be taken
as true” can be found by reading the Writ of Mandamus. You will find a
copy of the Writ below my observations and questions. If you want to read
the former but not the latter, there is a scroll bar on the right side of your
screen.
The Federal Reserve said it takes the facts as stated in the Writ “as
true.” Read the Writ. Look at the facts the Fed is willing to
accept "as true.”
Who is lying? A private corporation called the “Federal Reserve” which
signs a document under penalty of perjury? Or an editor or publisher of a
report trying to make a buck via histrionics?
From International Currency Review (ICR), World Reports, 15 March 2010
"• THE CROOKS AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL HAD BEEN CAUGHT RED-HANDED TRYING, ONCE
AGAIN, TO DIVERT/STEAL THE SOVEREIGN LOAN FUNDS INTENDED FOR DOLLAR
REFUNDING."
(Just another aside, but in the last issue of ICR, didn't the Editor decide the
"Sovereign Loan Funds" were lost by the Queen to Wall Street
derivatives? Wasn't the Governor of the Bank of England in jail because
the "Sovereign Loan Funds" were used to purchase worthless
derivatives? Or, is "the Queen's Gold" that which was reported
by the Editor to have been lost in bad derivative investments by the Bank of
England's Governor who was, according to the Editor, imprisoned? Do the
"Sovereign Loan Funds" involve the $6.2 trillion Her Majesty was
supposed to have loaned President G. W. Bush? Or is the $6.2 trillion the
"Sovereign Loan Funds" lost to derivatives? Are they the same funds?
Or, are they different? The terms seem to be used interchangeably and
it's difficult to discern what's being said. One thing is certain.
For a nation with so many trillions of dollars available -- Sovereign Loan
Funds" and "Queen's Gold" (and who knows what other funds exist
that Mr. Story has not yet divulged?) the UK sure has a lot of unemployment and
British Pound Sterling is taking a bath vs. other world currencies. You'd
think with all this money, the Queen would be able to help Her people.
(Back to International Currency Review, 15 March 2010.)
"THE IMMEDIATE PREDECESSOR DECEPTION THAT WE ALSO ABORTED
“As you will recall, an earlier, more feeble operation had erupted, centred on
a crude attempt to rewrite Mr Wanta’s legend, inter alia to purport to
represent that he ‘worked for’ the Federal Reserve – which would have had
tangible consequences facilitating’ diversion of the funds – contrary to the
language of the Writ for a Petition of Mandamus and the Motion to Dismiss filed
by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, both of which were the subject of a
hearing at the United States Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
Alexandria, attended by Michael C. Cottrell, Dana V. Wilcox, the Editor of this
service, and Mr Wanta.
"Any variation of Wanta’s legend would have undermined the language of the
Petition, leaving him vulnerable to a charge of perjury: hence, when we
republished the text of the Petition which it had been anticipated that
everyone would have forgotten all about, that operation had to be aborted.
Moreover parties involved in promulgating the lies in question had to cease and
desist, as well."
Who, other than Christopher Story, purported Ambassador Wanta “worked for"
the Federal Reserve? I’ve never seen a document from or about the Federal
Reserve and/or an “employee” named “Leo Wanta” or “Leo Emil Wanta” or “Lee
Wanta” – or “Junkyard Dog,” for that matter. Had he done so, the Federal
Reserve of Richmond would have certainly had grounds to Dismiss the Writ of
Mandamus based on conflict of interest. Instead, they accepted the Writ,
as submitted by Ambassador Wanta, “as true.” Did the Fed lie? If
so, since it would hurt Ambassador Wanta’s case, why?
As a journalist, this fascinates me. A person who earns his income from
writing a newsletter makes an unverified statement about a “feeble operation”
in an article, then much later refers to it as if, because he is quoting
himself, it is a verified statement. It appears what can be a rumor
one day becomes a fact when later quoted. What a way to run a railroad –
I mean, newsletter.
1) Christopher Story publishes an article that declares
Ambassador Wanta had some kind of nebulous and never described working
relationship with the Federal Reserve. No evidence is published that
verifies this statement.
In a very early edition of the same publication (I have no date, but the pages
are marked at the bottom #30, 2 & 3). This article says:
"Much of the totals accumulated in Title 18 Section 6 USG corporations are
or were tied up in the kind of instrument that the Bank of England and the
Federal Reserve state for public consumption, does not exist, namely 'Prime
Bank Guarantees,' a type of Certified Deposit Mr. Wanta would buy from lending
banks and trade at a profit, on behalf of the US Treasury, working under cover
of Title 18 corporations such as Aneko Credit Pte based in Singapore."
Story states Ambassador Wanta would buy "Prime Bank Guarantees" but
the Fed doesn't admit they exist. Other sources say "Prime Bank
Guarantees" were, at the time Ambassador Wanta was investing in them,
legal in Europe but not in the U.S. Christopher Story doesn't even allow
that other opinions outside of his own exist.
Story went to the Writ of Mandamus hearing in Virginia. He says the
Motion to Dismiss filed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond was discussed
at the same hearing he, Christopher Story, attended. If that's true, then
Mr. Story is aware that the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond's statement
included the following statement (Mr. Story is aware because he published it;
here it is, again):
"FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND
"Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P., Respondent Federal Reserve Bank
of Richmond (“FRB Richmond”) moves to dismiss the Petition for Writ of Mandamus
and Other Extraordinary Relief (the “Petition”). The grounds of this Motion, as
amplified in the attached Brief, are as follow.
"For the purposes of this Motion only, all well pleaded facts will be
taken as true."
In other words, the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond accepted as truth the statements
made by Ambassador Wanta in his Writ of Mandamus. I repeat: For
those who have not read the total Writ of Mandamus, it is provided at the end
of my comments.
2) In March 2010, Christopher Story writes about an
earlier, more feeble operation he says erupted -- again, no evidence to support
his written words -- and that it is a "crude attempt to rewrite Mr Wanta's
legend..." Unless I'm mistaken, Mr. Story just admitted that his own
published words were a "crude attempt" to rewrite another person's
legend -- a legend that belongs to one man but one he, credits himself with
creating. And he has dramatically changed the tale as he wrote
about it. What a great way to make a living! Create it, get
monetary credit for it, back away, attack it, make a "crude attempt"
to destroy it, but keep it alive as long as it's making money.
3) Christopher Story tells us that if Ambassador Wanta
was working for the Fed it would 'have had tangible consequences facilitating'
diversion of the funds -- contrary to the language of the Writ for a Petition
of Mandamus and the “as true” statement about the Writ in the Motion to Dismiss
filed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. That Hearing in the United
States Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, was, according to
Christopher Story, attended by Michael C. Cottrell, Col. Dana V. Wilcox,
"the Editor of this service," and Mr. Wanta. He offers no proof
that makes a reasonable person doubt the documents as presented to the Court
that day, but expects his readers to accept what he says as fact -- though the
"facts" often change from paragraph to paragraph -- as do the terms
used to describe things like "Sovereign Fund" and "Queen's
Gold."
Everyone needs to remember that Christopher Story also said in a recent edition
of International Currency Review: "But although I invented the
phrase Wantagate and then plugged the matter very intensively, I did this as a
marketing matter and publicity device because the Wanta cause served several
purposes."
In other words, facts don't matter. Serving Story's purpose and marketing
it "intensively" matter.
THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Civil Action no.: 1-07 CV 609
LEE E. WANTA, LEO E. WANTA, AMBASSADOR LEO WANTA (Individually and as sole and
exclusive shareholder of AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc., a Commonwealth of Virginia
registered corporation)
Petitioner
v.
HENRY M. PAULSON, JR.
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
UNITED STATES TREASURY, and
ROBERT M. KIMMITT
DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
UNITED STATES TREASURY, and
JAMES R. WILKINSON
CHIEF OF STAFF
UNITED STATES TREASURY, and
MICHAEL CHERTOFF
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, and
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND
DIRECTOR AND/OR MANAGER OF OPERATIONS,
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
Respondents
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
AND OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF
A. PARTIES:
1. LEE E. WANTA, LEO E. WANTA, AMBASSADOR LEO WANTA
5516 Falmouth Street
Suite 108
Richmond, Virginia 23230: Petitioner
2. Henry M. Paulson, Jr.
Secretary of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20220: Respondent
3. Robert M. Kimmitt
Deputy Secretary of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20220: Respondent
4. James R. Wilkinson
Chief of Staff
United States Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20220: Respondent
5. Michael Chertoff
Secretary of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C.: respondent
6. Alberto R. Gonzales
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001: Respondent
7. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
701 East Byrd Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219: Respondent
B. JURISDICTION:
1. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has
jurisdiction over the subject matter of this cause of action pursuant to the
provisions of Title 28 United States Code, Chapter 85, Section 1361 (mandamus),
Title 28 United States Code, Chapter 85, Section 1331, and Title 28 United
States Code, Chapter 85, Section 1332.
C. VENUE:
2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Title 28 United States Code,
Chapter 87, Section 1391, and Title 28 United States Code Chapter 87, Section
1396.
D. STATEMENT OF CL..
3. Mandamus is regarded as an extraordinary writ reserved for special
situations. Among its ordinary preconditions are that the agency or official
have acted (or failed to act) in disregard of a clear legal duty and that there
be no adequate conventional means for review. In re Bluewater Network &
Ocean Advocates, 234 F.3d 1305, 1315 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Telecomm. Research &
Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70, 78 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
Mandamus will be granted if the Petitioner shows “(1) the presence of novel and
significant questions of law; (2) the inadequacy of other available remedies;
and (3) the presence of a legal issue whose resolution will aid in the
administration of justice”, see In re United States, 10 F.3d 229 at 931, 933
(2d Cir. 1993).
4. Petitioner has attempted to access monies that were transferred through
international bank monetary clearing systems to financial institutions located
in the United States of America. The remitting party was the People’s Republic
of China, People’s Bank. The remitting party designated that the transferred
funds were for the sole and exclusive use and benefit of Petitioner. The
foreign entity that originated the inward remittance designated Petitioner as
sole and exclusive recipient for the transferred money/financial instruments.
Irrespective of efforts proffered by Petitioner and/or agents and
representatives of Petitioner, private and public individuals and entities,
prevent Petitioner from exercising Petitioner’s legal right to the use,
transfer and unrestricted ability to freely disburse said financial assets. The
acts and/or omissions to act by named and unnamed Respondents prevent
Petitioner (and others who are ancillary to this cause of action) from paying
their respective tax liabilities to both State and Federal taxing authorities.
5. Upon best information and belief the organizations, entities, departments
and individuals that prevent and/or restrict Petitioner’s lawful access to said
money and securities include but are not necessarily limited to the following:
• Secretary of the Treasury;
• Attorney General of the United States of America;
• Bank of America;
• J.P. Morgan Chase;
• CITIBANK/CITIGROUP/NYC including but not limited to Mr Charles O. Prince,
CITIGROUP Chief Executive Officer;
• Goldman Sachs et al including but not limited to past and present management
and executive officers and members of the Board of Directors;
• United States Department of the Treasury including but not limited to
Secretary
Paulson, Deputy Secretary Kimmitt and other known and/or unknown parties
working directly or under contract with the United States Department of the
Treasury;
• Secretary Chertoff, Department of Homeland Security and other known and/or
unknown parties working directly or under contract with the United States
Department of Homeland Security;
• One or more known and/or unknown “compliance officers” that act directly
and/or under contract with private bank and/or security brokerage firms to
observe rules and regulations of the United States Department of the Treasury
and/or other USG investigative and reporting entities;
• Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Virginia.
View Part 2 of 2 below or click on url
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=147509065&blogId=531285897
UNITED STATES of America - Further update from
Ambassador Leo Wanta:
View Part 1 of 2 above or click on url
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=147509065&blogId=531286377
Continued:
6. Upon best information and belief Respondent acts and/or failures to act
constitute a
violation of the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934 (as amended in 1970), the
Bank
Privacy Act and other non-specified banking regulations.
7. Reasonable action has been taken by Petitioner to obtain an explanation
and/or under what authority Respondents are not permitting Petitioner to have
access to the foreign transferred private business financial assets referenced
herein. Despite written notice and request for a response the named parties
avoid their legal obligations. In furtherance of this Petition for the issuance
of a Writ of Mandamus Petitioner directs this Court’s attention to the letters
and other communications that have been collectively marked as Exhibits A
attached hereto (2) and all of which documents, letters and Memorandum are
incorporated herein by this reference as if the same were set out in their
entirety in the body of this Petition.
8. The material, substantive and immediate financial loss to the Petitioner
resulting from loss of financial benefit can not adequately be addressed in
conventional judicial proceedings.
In one or more instances parties in position of knowledge, that can confirm the
representations regarding interference in private business dealings, between
Petitioner and third parties, have been placed at risk of physical harm by
individuals representing to be fiduciaries of one or more of the Respondents.
Additionally, the acts and actions of the Respondents prevent immediate payment
of Federal taxes in the amount of $1.575 Trillion dollars into the United
States Treasury.
E. BACKGROUND:
9. On or about April 15, 2003 the Honorable Gerald Bruce Lee, in Case Number
02-1363-A filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, issued an Order and Memorandum of Opinion for the referenced numbered
case. As part of the Order and Memorandum of the Court (in the referenced case)
the Court stated that the Plaintiff (in the referenced case) should pursue
liquidation of corporations, recovery of financial assets and pay all required
taxes in accordance with the law (3).
10. Petitioner initiated contact with numerous third parties, including United
States elected, nominated, appointed and career employees plus foreign
countries, for the purpose of recovering financial assets.
11. Upon best information and belief in December 2005 and January 2006,
Secretary Snow (Secretary of the Treasury at the time) and Chairman Greenspan
(Chairman of the Federal Reserve at the time) traveled to the People’s Republic
of China.
The Chinese required confirmation of Petitioner’s signature to facilitate
cooperation of the Chinese in completing the transfer of financial assets
referenced herein. Upon best information and belief Snow/Greenspan determined
that Chinese officials had the ability and willingness to cooperate with
petitioner in the recovery and transfer of substantial financial assets that
had been in the care, custody and control of the Chinese for an extended period
of time.
12. Premised on the representations of Secretary Snow and Chairman Greenspan,
the legal services of Troutman Sanders, LLP and Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker
Chapin, LLP (attorneys) were used to complete the preparation and administer
the execution of agreements and documents referred to collectively as
“settlement documents”. The following is a compilation of the significant
parties that are represented as either obligors and/or beneficiaries of the
settlement documents:
• Petitioner Wanta identified in this petition.
• Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (including but not limited to Land
Baron/Xeno).
• National Security Agency (NSA).
• Department of Homeland Security.
• Director of National Intelligence.
• United States State Department.
• United States Department of the Treasury.
• United States Department of Defense.
• The White House, including but not limited to the Offices of the President
and Vice President.
• C.B.I.C. Inc. (Mr William Bonney Sr.).
• China (PRC), France, Great Britain, Germany and other foreign nations
participating under one or more international “Protocol” including but not
limited to the Reagan-Mitterrand Protocol agreements.
• Others of interest not intentionally omitted as part of this petition.
The entirety of the financial assets mentioned in the settlement documents
prepared by the above mentioned attorneys concerns approximately $27 Trillion
United States Dollars in value. The portion attributable and payable to the
petitioner is $4.5 Trillion United States Dollars.
13. In May of 2006 the People’s Republic of China caused a free and
unrestricted transfer of $4.5 Trillion United States Dollars through
international bank fund transfer facilities to an account at Bank of America
located at Richmond, Virginia. The designated beneficiary of the transferred
funds from the People’s Republic of China was Petitioner herein.
This transfer was made by the People’s Republic of China solely and exclusively
as a requirement under the mentioned settlement agreement.
14. Upon best information and belief between the dates of July 31st to August
2nd of 2006 the United States Department of the Treasury, without authorization
of either the remitting party or the receiving party removed the People’s
Republic of China transferred financial assets from Bank of America Richmond,
Virginia to an account in the name of Goldman Sachs at CITIBank New York, New
York as the beneficiary holder of the monies transferred by the People’s
Republic of China referenced above. This “Chip” (Clearing House Interbank
Payment) transfer was facilitated from Virginia domiciled banks to New York
domiciled banks via the Federal Reserve Bank Richmond.
The Chip transfer did not remove the name of Petitioner as the intended
recipient of the transferred money from the People’s Republic of China. The
transfer to the Goldman Sachs et al account at CITIBank put a lawless
restriction that the funds were not to be released to Petitioner without the
authorization of United States Treasury.
At or about the time of the unauthorized transfer mentioned in this paragraph
14 Petitioner protested the alleged right of “entitlement” by Secretary Paulson
and to facilitate protest of right of ownership under the “Securities Acts”
accounts were opened in the name of AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc. at Morgan Stanley,
fiduciary client account at CITIBank/NYC to receive direct deposit transfer of
Petitioner funds from Goldman Sachs.
15. The Petitioner has been contacted by “Compliance Officers” that are
contract employees of the United States Department of the Treasury that the
transfer records of the United States Department of the Treasury and the
recipient (past and present holder of the funds transferred to Petitioner by
the People’s Republic of China) reflect that the accounts opened to receive the
financial assets are tagged and coded for the benefit of the Petitioner.
Access to the tagged and coded accounts requires lawless authorization to be
provided in writing by Secretary Paulson. To date Secretary {Henry M.] Paulson
refuses to provide the required written authorization to the compliance
officers.
In addition one or more compliance officer (referenced herein) has been
contacted by Secret Service Agents who have advised the compliance officers
that the “White House” ordered that the compliance officers cease and desist
from communicating in any manner with Petitioner.
16. Upon best information and belief the compliance officers mentioned in
paragraph 15 have been in contact with law enforcement officers representing
the Central Intelligence Agency and the United States Department of Defense.
These mentioned law enforcement officers confirm that the information provided
by the compliance officers is true and correct and that upon best information
and belief the “order” preventing Secretary Paulson from releasing the “tagged
and coded” funds that are the sole and exclusive property of the Petitioner
have been either lawlessly and individually controlled by Secretary Paulson
and/or restricted through direct participation by other United States of
America elected and/or nominated officials.
17. Upon best information and belief Troutman Sanders LLP and Jenkens &
Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP, seeking legal recourse on behalf of C.B.I.C. Inc.
(Mr William Bonney Sr.) and the People’s Republic of China obtained an Order to
Show Cause Why a Writ of Mandamus Should Not Be Issued from the United States
Supreme Court signed by Justice Ginsberg. The People’s Republic of China, as a
foreign government, invoked the original jurisdiction authority of the United
States Supreme Court to obtain the document signed by Justice Ginsberg. Upon
further best information and belief the responding parties to the action filed
in the United States Supreme Court are exercising any and all assumed defenses
to ward off the issuance of the Writ of Mandamus.
18. The United States Department of Justice and/or any agency or investigative
authority contacted has refused to assist Petitioner in the collection of
lawful funds. The said parties refuse such assistance irrespective that there
is clear and undisputed evidence that the subject funds are identified in
official United States government agency documents as being the sole and
exclusive property of Petitioner. As of the date of the filing of this Petition,
all requests for payment of lawful funds have been ignored by any and all
elected and nominated public officials that have the implied and apparent
authority to complete all requirements of the settled documents.
19. Petitioner individually and as sole and exclusive controlling shareholder
of AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc. certifies as follows:
• The Petitioner has personally had conversations with one or more officials at
the United States Department of the Treasury and said officials confirm the
sequence of events concerning inward remittance of subject funds from the
People’s Republic of China and inter-bank transfers within the United States.
• Petitioner confirms that he has personal knowledge about the “Claims and
Background” set out in this Petition and verifies upon penalty of perjury that
the same are true and correct.
• Petitioner has fully and completely reviewed the content of this petition and
certifies by sworn affidavit attached hereto that the “Statement of Claim and
Background” are true and correct.
• Upon best information and belief “Respondent” individuals, agencies, public,
private, nominated and/or elected have knowingly, overtly, covertly and with
specific intent conspired together to defraud Petitioner. The individual and/or
conspiratorial acts amount to a violation of the Securities Acts of 1933 and
1934 (as amended in 1970), the Bank Privacy Act, the Organized Crime Control
Act of 1970, specifically R.I.C.O. legislation and applicable international and
national money laundering restrictions. In addition it is further the mentioned
Respondents’ acting individually and/or “acting in concert” violate
Petitioner’s rights under the provisions of H.R. 3723 as the same pertains to
private business transactions being protected under both private and criminal
penalties.
Reasonable action has been taken by the Petitioner in an attempt to obtain
explanation and/or under what authority Respondents are not allowing the “Rule
of Law” and permitting access by Petitioner to the financial accounts referenced
herein. Despite continued written notice and request for a response the named
parties continue to avoid their legal obligations and continue to commit covert
and/or overt acts in furtherance of their knowing and purposeful violation of
the statutory references mentioned hereinabove. In furtherance of this petition
for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus Petitioners direct this Court’s
attention to the letters and other communications that have been marked as
Exhibits A, B and C (4) attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference as if the same were set out in their entirety in the body of this
petition.
F. CONCLUSION:
21. The “Statement of Claim and Background” demonstrate “(1) the presence of
novel and significant questions of law; (2) the inadequacy of other available
remedies; and (3) the presence of a legal issue whose resolution will aid in
the administration of justice”.
G. REQUEST FOR RELIEF:
1. Emergency consideration of this Petition with an expedited response time for
Respondents to respond to this Petition and an expedited time for the Court to
hear the merits of this matter.
2. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper to protect
the Constitutionally protected rights of the Petitioner.
Executed on this 18th day of June 2007.
[Signed]
LEE E. WANTA, LEO E. WANTA, AMBASSADOR LEO WANTA _Pro_Se
5516 Falmouth Street
Suite 108
Richmond, Virginia 23230: Petitioner
Telephone: 814 455 9218
Telefax: 202 330 5116
AFFIDAVIT
The undersigned, being fully advised by counsel of the seriousness of the claim
of making false statements to a Court and being fully apprised of the
consequences for committing perjury (and the associated penalties), hereby make
the following statements concerning the petition for Writ of Mandamus being
filed on my behalf, by my counsel, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia:
1. I am more than twenty-one years of age and I am a citizen of the United
States of America.
2. For an extended period of time I am functioning as a representative,
investigator, contract employee and/or facilitator of one or more assignments
that were either executed and/or performed at the direction and/or under the
supervision of one or more persons and/or agencies that were accountable to the
Executive Offices of the United States Government
3. During most recent three to five years I have been attempting to coordinate
the repatriating of substantive financial resources from foreign locations to
the United States and cause the tax payments owed on the patriated funds to be
paid to the United States Treasury. I have substantially completed the stated
objective task with the assistance of one or more foreign sources.
4. I have read the entirety of the Petition for Writ of Mandamus prepared by my
attorneys. I confirm that I have personally directed communications with the
banks, security firms, the United States Department of the Treasury (including
one or more individual parties associated with the Treasury that are named as
Respondents) and other entities mentioned in the Petition.
5. I have personally confirmed that the financial assets sent by the People’s
Republic of China were received by Bank of America in Richmond, Virginia and
that upon best information and belief the subject financial assets were
“tagged” in my name and transmittal instructions by the People’s Republic of
China directed that the same be paid to me without offset or delay.
6. I have been personally advised by agents and/or contract regulation
compliance workers, that are accountable to the United States Department of the
Treasury, that release of funds sent by the People’s Republic of China for
payment to me is being restricted and/or blocked by one or more parties.
7. The exact party and/or parties that are restricting and/or blocking payment
of financial assets to my designated accounts is not known absolutely.
8. Upon best information and belief the United States Department of the
Treasury has the power and authority to direct release of the funds for my
unrestricted use.
9. Despite continued demand for release of financial assets (that were
transmitted by the People’s Republic of China) for payment to me personally the
demands are ignored and are not rebuked by any responsive communication.
10. I have been personally informed by parties, that have the authority to
release the block on funds leveraged against recipient banking accounts
established in my name, that directives have been received from known and
unknown parties that have the effect of negating my ability to have free and
unrestricted access to financial assets that are “tagged” solely and
exclusively in my name.
IN WITNESS HEREOF I am causing the above set forth affidavit to be notarized
and sworn with full recognition of the penalty of perjury this 11th day of June
2007.
[Signed]
Lee E. Wanta, Leo E. Wanta and
Ambassador Leo E. Wanta
...
TOM HENEGHAN'S EXPLOSIVE INTELLIGENCE BRIEFINGS
International Intelligence Expert, Tom Heneghan, has hundreds of
highly credible sources inside American and European Intelligence Agencies and
INTERPOL--reporting what is REALLY going on behind the scenes of the
corporate-controlled mainstream media cover up propaganda of on-going massive
deceptions and illusions.
http://blogs.myspace.com/tom_heneghan_intel